WinNT (or was it 2K?) earned a CC certification not all that long ago.
Wasn't that ONLY IF YOU DIDN'T CONNECT IT TO A NETWORK? If that is the case, then no security patches are needed - no one can break security if no one can GET TO the box...
For starters, there is no "right to privacy". The Bill of Rights enumerates a number of rights that, taken in summary, give what amounts to a "right" of privacy, but no specific right to privacy itself.
For starters, the "right to privacy" DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED(see Amendment IX).
In addition, any rights or requirements NOT SPECIFICALLY GRANTED THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT are specifically retained by the states and the individual (see Amendment X).
Really, the only difference between [this and] a wiretap or a bug is that the FBI used different technology in this case. Nothing has changed. The FBI identified a suspect in a crime, got a warrant for a wiretap and executed the warrant.
No. In a wiretap or bug, the service is not interupted, it is monitored. In this case, the FBI HIJACKED the service for their own purposes and use, which meant the people who were paying for a specific service were not able to use that service.
If the FBI got a warrent for a wire tap of your telephone, but instead of just listening in they interupted your telephone service so that you could not call anyone, but they could always hear your conversations as though you had called them and then put the handset down without disconnecting the call then I think it would be more like what they were doing in this case.
Nothing has changed.
Yes, it has. It has been possible for a long time to bug a telephone - either a microphone on the instrument itself, or by taping into the line somewhere outside of the premises - but the telephone could still be used for its primary and intended purpose. The issue in the article is that the FBI used the technology in such a way that it could not also be used for its' intended purpose. I like your use of the word hijacked, as that is exactly what they did.
Now, if they had just hijacked the signal without going through the legal hoops, THAT would be disturbing news.
I think just the going from passive listening to actively "hijacking the signal" is an alarming developement.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Trump 1.a. any playing card of a suit that for the time outranks the other suits. such a card being able to take any card of another suit.... 3.to take with a trump.... 5.a. to play a trump 5.b. to take a trick with a trump...
Also
Trump card 1. Trump 2. something that gives a person or group a decisive or willing advantage.
Source: Websters College Dictionary
So "Seems the right to get the service you pay for trumps the 'right' of the FBI to spy on you, using your own vehicle's systems!" is indeed the case as reported in the article.
Also that is exactly the conclusion of the court as well.
I am not sure, but I think he means those politicians who didn't roll over and lick the foot of the poeple who actually did the killing - I see in the first several pages quite a few poeple killed - not by US forces, but by other people trying to kill US forces - and MISSING.
In addition their "upwards of 10,000 people" is actually listed as several hundred LESS than 10,000 people. In the first half of the listing, I counted over 100 people killed by car bombs, in retribution for 'cooperating with the US forces', road side bombs, and ordinance directed at US forces that killed others.
In addition, there are between 5799 and 7274 reported from various hospitals with no way of directly attributing them to the hostilities at all, or if they actually should have been counted might have been double counted - once as a victim of a car bomb, then again as a hospital casualty.
So let me see. Less than 10,000 claimed, possibly as many as 3/4 of those double counted, and a large number of the rest killed by accident by people trying to attack the US forces.
Yes, those politicians have a lot to answer for - especially that Sadam, and Osama.
Only one gun has a live round, while the other members of the firing squad have blanks.
Actually, all the rifles EXCEPT ONE have live rounds. That way, everyone on the firing squad can thing they had the blank and not think they killed someone.
As far as hanging, part of the point of the gallows is to allow you to fall for a short distance before the rope snaps taut. If the knot was correctly placed, the knot and rope work together to dislocate the first cervical vertebra and sever the spinal cord (known as a "hangmans' fracture" even though there is no fracture of any bone if done correctly). The person hanged does not strangle because the rope cuts off their airway, they die from suffocation because the diaphram is no longer working to pull air into the lungs. Some people can survive for several minutes without breathing (CPR instructors teach that brain damage BEGINS after 4 minutes), so the person being hanged may be alive and aware for several minutes after being hanged. On the other hand, someone executed by a firing squad would be hit by (How many are in a firing squad? 9 people?) 8 bullets and would die from loss of blood or from the destruction of the hearts' ability to pump blood. Loss of blood pressure would cause extramely quick loss of consiousness, followed shortly by death from exsanguination.
By the way, the guillotine was supposed to be a more humane way to execute people for that same reason, as well as the fact that the executioner, if they were not skilled or didn't have a VERY sharp blade might have to take several hacks at beheading a person, whereas the weighted blade and piece that fitted around the neck held the condemned in just the right position for a quick, clean, one shot execution - although there were stories about severed heads that would look around and blink a few times before being still - sometimes even moving their mouths as though talking or screaming.
The first time I say a reference to the McDonalds' coffee lawsuit, I knew they were incorrect and, like you, set out the correct facts.
The second, third and fourth times I did the same, assuming they just had not gotten the word or the point of my previous postings.
The next half dozen times I replied with the correct facts about the case, I assumed the people posting the incorrect facts were mentally deficient in some way and just NEEDED to have the facts repeated over and over in order to understand them. I was willing to oblige.
Anymore, I just figure the people posting that nonsense either are trolling for responses or are of that variety of people who have their mind already made up and can not be swayed by facts - so I no longer reply to their posts.
These people are seemingly proud of their ignorance and have no intention of "research[ing] your facts before you speak.", or are deliberately trying to post nonsense that will get people to reply - trolling - which is as useless an activity as any I can think of with the possible exception of responding to those postings.
Your efforts to educate are applauded, but are probably wasted. My suggestion would be to move on to more rewarding endeavors.
Now here I can agree with you. People with "real-world experience with developing enterprise applications" probably DO feel compelled to bash Microsoft - after all, what other company tries so hard to produce enterprise level applications and fails so miserably at it?
Funny, but I have experience that says otherwise. As do many other companies.
I agree that I intended that to be a little tongue-in-cheek, but I would have to assume that none of the companies you were refering to were affected IN ANY WAY by any of the Outlook virus emails, or the SQL Server worms, or the RPC worms, or the IIS exploits, or the malicious macros in Word - nor were they inconvenienced by the patching that was required to close the security holes in either the operating system (RPC exploit), email/Outlook (any number of emailed applications that make use of Outlook running arbitrary executable files), SQL Server (didn't this hit Microsofts' network as well?), or IIS, or word, or Excel, or...
I understood Outlook was intended to be an enterprise level application. Why doesn't it have enterprise level security?
I also thought IIS was intended to be an enterprise level app. again, a swing and a miss.
SQL Server? Word? Excel? Windows2000? Were they not intended and advertised as being enterprise level? Why are they not secure enough to be used at that level?
Why are these "enterprise level applications" causing tens (hundreds?) of billions of dollars worth of damage or inconvenience to the companies using them when their security is breached?
Maybe they do the things they were intended to do well enough to be considered useful at an enterprise level, but the things they do that they are not supposed to do remove them from that level - and render them liabilities when deployed at an enterprise level.
I agree, pwtrash - I always love it (really grit my teeth when I hear it) when the answer does not address the question.
"But aren't Sun and IBM doing that to make that happen? And IBM and Sun are investing a lot of money to make sure their software works with their respective utility computing programs. What are you doing besides saying we'll sit down with you and work on it?It's interesting. We've spent $2.5 billion in Adaptive Enterprise. That's a pretty healthy R&D investment, so I disagree that we're not investing in technology. "
Who said or asked about investing in technology? The question was "What are you doing besides saying we'll sit down with you and work on it" and "I disagree that we're not investing in technology" is not answering that question. In fact, your (Nora Denzels') answer totally evades the question. So you spent 2.5 billion in Adaptive Enterprise. How much was for consultants who cam up with the name 'Adaptive Enterprise', how much was payroll for the management who came up with the project, what specifically did you get for that 2.5 billion that makes your product better than another product? Yes, yes, that IS a pretty healty R&D investment, BUT was it all invested in R&D (was some of it G&A? How about Marketing?) and if so, WHAT DID YOU GET FOR THE MONEY that makes your product better than other products available from other venders?
Now, I hate business-speak as much as the next guy, but the "gem" you quote made perfect sense.
And the statement quoted is Adaptive Enterprise defines an entity where a company will be able to dynamically readjust to changes that affect its business.
I am confused as to which part made 'perfect sense'. "Adaptive Enterprise defines (no, it LABELS) an entity (a thing, something that exists as a distinct, independent, or self-contained unit, a being or existence - Websters College Dictionary - how is this thing, being, or existence being defined by those words?) where (aha, so it is a place or a destination?) a company will be able to dynamically (non-statically) readjust (REadjust? So they have already dynamically adjusted now they are dynamically REadjusting?) to changes that affect its business."
Sorry, but I never took MarketSpeak in college when I was going for an AS in Nursing, or when I went back for an AS in Accounting, or the time I spent working for a BS in CS/EE dual degree - just regular English. Maybe that is the handicap that is causing my confusion.
They are talking about the ability for your [sic] to change your business processes without having to modify code and recreate applications.
Oh!!, Ok. Now I see what you... Wait a minute! How are they going to dynamically readjust to "legal changes reguarding to [sic] auditing of customer privacy information" that affect its business "without having to modify code and recreate applications"? And how does a company dynamically readjust to "changes to the tax code" that affect its business "without having to modify code and recreate applications"?
Of course, the fact you were compelled to bash MS in your post should say something about your real-world exprience with developing enterprise applications.
Now here I can agree with you. People with "real-world experience with developing enterprise applications" probably DO feel compelled to bash Microsoft - after all, what other company tries so hard to produce enterprise level applications and fails so miserably at it?
FROM SCCs WEB SITE, they sell parts to remanufactures - THEY DON'T REFILL CARTRIDGES OR SELL REFILLED CARTRIDGES.
They seem to sell to third parties (one in my area is LaserLogic) so that the third party can do those things - replace drums, wiper, refill cartridges, etc.
I agree one of us doesn't know what they are talking about. As I am taking my information from that given by Static Control Component, I suspect it is you.
I'm pretty well aware of what there [sic] services are.
Evidently not.
As I said, they make parts - including chips - FOR OTHER COMPANIES so the other companies can remanufacture (and sell) toner cartridges.
Static Control Components... makes computer chips for third-party ink cartridges. The chips enable manufacturers to create clones of the cartridges used in Lexmark printers.
So your post Static Control is a cartridge remanufacturer. They don't make their own....they replace drums, wipers, etc. and refill them. is a "[n]ice point. Too bad it's blatantly wrong.":)
They are not cartridge remanufactures. They don't replace drums,wiper, etc. They don't refill them (cartridges). They make chips FOR OTHER COMPANIES so the other companies can do those things.
The parent poster you quote is also partially wrong, in that SCC never "sold their own compatible toner carts." that I can see. They are correct, though that "[t]he Lexmark case is about how a laserprinter toner cartridge manufacturer (SCC) reverse-engineered the circuitry on the Lexmark toner carts" - specifically the chip Lexmark started using that "communicates with the company's printers and verifies that the cartridge is from Lexmark. Without that verification, the cartridge won't work. SCC's Smartek chips mimic the Lexmark chips so third-party cartridges can pose as official ones." (same site as above link.)
Last year Lexmark began using a chip in some of its cartridges that communicates with the company's printers and verifies that the cartridge is from Lexmark. Without that verification, the cartridge won't work. SCC's Smartek chips mimic the Lexmark chips so third-party cartridges can pose as official ones.
As the Copyright owner, you cannot tell others how they can use your software.
Yes.
[GPL] uses Copyright to limit what others can do with the software.
Yes and no. Copyright limitswhat you can do with the software, the GPL grants distribution/redistribution rights to the software AND ANY MODIFICATIONS. Therefore GPL extends the limits of what you can do with the software.
If they (SCO or other company) use GPL'd software in their product, then the GPL covers that software as well, or they remove the GPL code.
It is more complicated than that. If their software is a modification of GPLed software then it must be GPLed as well. If it only USES GPLed software, the GPLed part must remain GPLed, but the other parts may remain propriatary - the GPL is not "viral" in that it does not contaminate by casual association, it only applies if the new work is a modification of the original work or makes the GPLed software an integral part of the software - i.e., linking to libraries that are GPLed.
ANY SOFTWARE that tries to limit what you can do with the software after purchase has an open license. You can put Windows OS on ANY computer you want. Any license on software that tries to limit your usage of said software becomes null and void.
Not really. The owner and/or copyright owner can put any restricitons on the licensing of the software they want. Whether the restrictions are legal is another matter. For instance, I can (and some do) put the restriction on usage that the software is not to be used for weapons developement. As far as I am aware that restriction has not been tested in court, so is presumed to be legal. NOTICE, though, that that is not COPYRIGHT that is putting the restriction on the end user, nor is it GPL. Copyright allowes the AUTHOR to put restrictions on their work.
After reading this, and realizing I understood the post, I have called for professional help. Thank you WWWWolf, for pointing out a dangerous flaw in my psychology!
If IBM supposedly has the source, based on past agreements made (surely they can find that tape, CD, or archived file somewhere) that they "stole" the information from, can't they use this source to compare against existing linux source to compare for similarities, similar to what SGI did?
Sure they COULD, but they don't have to - SCO has to specify the violations but they are not. IBM is not required to do SCOs legal research. Either SCO does their own, or it gets thrown out.
It is not enought for SCO to say IBM is infringing "somewhere" and IBM has to figure out where. In court SCO has to show EXACTLY where.
Supposedly, SCO found a (some?) specific, identifiable instance(s) of SCO controlled source code in something IBM had released into the wild which prompted the lawsuit. IBM is saying "tell us what you found." SCO seems to be saying "you tell us what we would have found if we had looked." Not anything IBM is required to do -under US law.
If you are using this to support the contention that Microsoft is behind the SCO lawsuit against IBM, or that this is 'common knowledge', it doesn't.
1) You are correct, SEC filings are public. This is not an SEC filing. This is an article that builds supposition around the licensing fees Microsoft has paid. The fees were disclosed in SEC filings - as required.
2) The fees paid were for 'licensing of Unix, and exercising of options to further license Unix'. I agree that there does not SEEM to be a reason for Microsoft to license Unix, but that is not sufficient evidence of wrong doing. It is definitely PROOF of wrong doing on anyones part.
Personally, I find it highly suspicious that a company with a vested interest in the demise of Linux and Open Source software is paying large amounts (relative to SCOs worth) in 'licensing fees' to a company with a lawsuit that might possibly achieve those goals, BUT THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF WRONG DOING.
It also doesn't make that suspicion "common knowledge".
Sorry, but you are reading it wrong. In order to protect the "right" of the software to be "Free", it restricts how you can distribute it.
Yes and no. COPYRIGHT limits who can distribute/redistribute copyrighted works - only those with a license from the copyright holder. GPL is that license, in advance, to anyone who agrees to its terms. You don't have to agree - but then you have no license to distribute/redistribute the software and can not do so.
I agree with you that the progression is PD (not copyright protected - actually copyright protections have ben waived), BSD (copyright, licensed for redistribution without terms), GPL (licensed for redistribution with terms), others (copyright without license to redistribute, but you can ask the copyright holder)... with MS (copyrighted, don't even ask about modifying or licensing) last.
You seem to be looking at this from a developer viewpoint, and saying that you would like to make use of the base of free software, but not have to agree to the limitations that all the others who are using that same base are agreeing to. I agree that might be nice, but that is specifically what the GPL is designed to prevent - taking FOSS and making it propriatary.
You are free to create any software you want or need, or modify existing software - but if it requires GPLed libraries, then you have two choices - use the GPLed libraries and release your software under the GPL, or re-invent the required libraries and release it however you want. What you are not allowed to do is make use of someone elses work, licensed to you with specific redistributing requirements under GPL and release the results however you might want.
Sorry, but you are the one who is incorrect, based on your posting.
The GPL grants you the right to use software.
Wrong. The author and copyright owner grants you usage rights. The GPL grants you REDISTRIBUTION rights (which you DON'T HAVE under copyright) but it does have restrictions - which you acknowledge - but the restrictions are on additional rights which you don't have under copyright - you only get them if you agree to the conditions of the GPL.
Copyrighted software is not allowed to be redistributed or modified in any way without the copyright owners permission - GPL is that permission, in advance, with some requirements.
Software that is not GPLed is not allowed to be modified or distributed without specific permission from the copyright holder. Full stop, period, end of discussion.
The key is that the restrictions are reasonable in the case of GPL, but yes, it DOES restrict what you can do
Again, it is COPYRIGHT that limits what you can do, it is GPL that LETS you do things that are not allowed under basic copyright. The GPL puts restrictions on the additional rights it grants you - again, rights that you don't have under non-GPLed code. If you don't agree to the GPL restrictions, you are "only" allowed the rights allowed under copyright.
Granting additional rights is not restictive, even if there are restrictions on those additional rights.
Developers must open their distributed changes, virtually free of charge. Most would say this is a fair trade off, benefiting the majority, but its still a very significant restriction. (emphysis added)
The author (the original creator of the software in this case) made the determination that they would license their work with the understanding that any CHANGES TO THEIR WORK would be required to also be released under the same restrictions. Personally, that sounds entirely reasonable to me. If you write a really great software program and decide to release it GPL, and I make an itneresting modification, I have two legal choices: I can keep the modification to my self and make any further modification I might want - an allowed activity under the GPL - or I can release my modification of your work to others - in which case it must conform to the license terms agreed to between you and I - the GPL.
Another choice is to release the modification under a different licensing scheme - but ask Lynksys/Cisco what happens then! That is not an allowed legal option and you are opening yourself up for lawsuits.
Slashdot Mirror
WinNT (or was it 2K?) earned a CC certification not all that long ago.
Wasn't that ONLY IF YOU DIDN'T CONNECT IT TO A NETWORK? If that is the case, then no security patches are needed - no one can break security if no one can GET TO the box...
Is there something wrong with not waiting till the last minute and trying to cram in a poorly tested feature without much time for testing?
Not a thing wrong with it; in fact it has been "bery bery good" to Microsoft...
I love this qoute:
The FBI says it can't say how many times it has issued itself NSLs because of national security.
Why is the FBI Issuing ITSELF national security letters? What is it doing that it doesn't know it is doing?
OH MY GOD, NO!!! OH THE HUMANITY OF IT ALL!!! WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN??!!?
SCOX down $0.08 at the close, all the way down to $13.85. Gives me a warm fuzzy knowing Boies et al lost (400,000x.08) $32,000 just today.
Here's hoping for an even better tomorrow...
For starters, there is no "right to privacy". The Bill of Rights enumerates a number of rights that, taken in summary, give what amounts to a "right" of privacy, but no specific right to privacy itself.
For starters, the "right to privacy" DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED(see Amendment IX).
In addition, any rights or requirements NOT SPECIFICALLY GRANTED THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT are specifically retained by the states and the individual (see Amendment X).
Really, the only difference between [this and] a wiretap or a bug is that the FBI used different technology in this case. Nothing has changed. The FBI identified a suspect in a crime, got a warrant for a wiretap and executed the warrant.
No. In a wiretap or bug, the service is not interupted, it is monitored. In this case, the FBI HIJACKED the service for their own purposes and use, which meant the people who were paying for a specific service were not able to use that service.
If the FBI got a warrent for a wire tap of your telephone, but instead of just listening in they interupted your telephone service so that you could not call anyone, but they could always hear your conversations as though you had called them and then put the handset down without disconnecting the call then I think it would be more like what they were doing in this case.
Nothing has changed.
Yes, it has. It has been possible for a long time to bug a telephone - either a microphone on the instrument itself, or by taping into the line somewhere outside of the premises - but the telephone could still be used for its primary and intended purpose. The issue in the article is that the FBI used the technology in such a way that it could not also be used for its' intended purpose. I like your use of the word hijacked, as that is exactly what they did.
Now, if they had just hijacked the signal without going through the legal hoops, THAT would be disturbing news.
I think just the going from passive listening to actively "hijacking the signal" is an alarming developement.
US Bill of Rights
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Umm, do you know the definition of "to trump"?
... ... ...
Trump
1.a. any playing card of a suit that for the time outranks the other suits. such a card being able to take any card of another suit.
3.to take with a trump.
5.a. to play a trump
5.b. to take a trick with a trump
Also
Trump card
1. Trump
2. something that gives a person or group a decisive or willing advantage.
Source: Websters College Dictionary
So "Seems the right to get the service you pay for trumps the 'right' of the FBI to spy on you, using your own vehicle's systems!" is indeed the case as reported in the article.
Also that is exactly the conclusion of the court as well.
I am not sure, but I think he means those politicians who didn't roll over and lick the foot of the poeple who actually did the killing - I see in the first several pages quite a few poeple killed - not by US forces, but by other people trying to kill US forces - and MISSING.
In addition their "upwards of 10,000 people" is actually listed as several hundred LESS than 10,000 people. In the first half of the listing, I counted over 100 people killed by car bombs, in retribution for 'cooperating with the US forces', road side bombs, and ordinance directed at US forces that killed others.
In addition, there are between 5799 and 7274 reported from various hospitals with no way of directly attributing them to the hostilities at all, or if they actually should have been counted might have been double counted - once as a victim of a car bomb, then again as a hospital casualty.
So let me see. Less than 10,000 claimed, possibly as many as 3/4 of those double counted, and a large number of the rest killed by accident by people trying to attack the US forces.
Yes, those politicians have a lot to answer for - especially that Sadam, and Osama.
World Trade Center numbers for comparison:
Total number killed in attacks (official figure as of 9/5/02): 2,819
Bodies found "intact": 289
Body parts found: 19,858
Number of nations whose citizens were killed in attacks: 115
Number of U.S. troops killed in Operation Enduring Freedom: 22
Only one gun has a live round, while the other members of the firing squad have blanks.
Actually, all the rifles EXCEPT ONE have live rounds. That way, everyone on the firing squad can thing they had the blank and not think they killed someone.
As far as hanging, part of the point of the gallows is to allow you to fall for a short distance before the rope snaps taut. If the knot was correctly placed, the knot and rope work together to dislocate the first cervical vertebra and sever the spinal cord (known as a "hangmans' fracture" even though there is no fracture of any bone if done correctly). The person hanged does not strangle because the rope cuts off their airway, they die from suffocation because the diaphram is no longer working to pull air into the lungs. Some people can survive for several minutes without breathing (CPR instructors teach that brain damage BEGINS after 4 minutes), so the person being hanged may be alive and aware for several minutes after being hanged. On the other hand, someone executed by a firing squad would be hit by (How many are in a firing squad? 9 people?) 8 bullets and would die from loss of blood or from the destruction of the hearts' ability to pump blood. Loss of blood pressure would cause extramely quick loss of consiousness, followed shortly by death from exsanguination.
By the way, the guillotine was supposed to be a more humane way to execute people for that same reason, as well as the fact that the executioner, if they were not skilled or didn't have a VERY sharp blade might have to take several hacks at beheading a person, whereas the weighted blade and piece that fitted around the neck held the condemned in just the right position for a quick, clean, one shot execution - although there were stories about severed heads that would look around and blink a few times before being still - sometimes even moving their mouths as though talking or screaming.
The first time I say a reference to the McDonalds' coffee lawsuit, I knew they were incorrect and, like you, set out the correct facts.
The second, third and fourth times I did the same, assuming they just had not gotten the word or the point of my previous postings.
The next half dozen times I replied with the correct facts about the case, I assumed the people posting the incorrect facts were mentally deficient in some way and just NEEDED to have the facts repeated over and over in order to understand them. I was willing to oblige.
Anymore, I just figure the people posting that nonsense either are trolling for responses or are of that variety of people who have their mind already made up and can not be swayed by facts - so I no longer reply to their posts.
These people are seemingly proud of their ignorance and have no intention of "research[ing] your facts before you speak.", or are deliberately trying to post nonsense that will get people to reply - trolling - which is as useless an activity as any I can think of with the possible exception of responding to those postings.
Your efforts to educate are applauded, but are probably wasted. My suggestion would be to move on to more rewarding endeavors.
Now here I can agree with you. People with "real-world experience with developing enterprise applications" probably DO feel compelled to bash Microsoft - after all, what other company tries so hard to produce enterprise level applications and fails so miserably at it?
Funny, but I have experience that says otherwise. As do many other companies.
I agree that I intended that to be a little tongue-in-cheek, but I would have to assume that none of the companies you were refering to were affected IN ANY WAY by any of the Outlook virus emails, or the SQL Server worms, or the RPC worms, or the IIS exploits, or the malicious macros in Word - nor were they inconvenienced by the patching that was required to close the security holes in either the operating system (RPC exploit), email/Outlook (any number of emailed applications that make use of Outlook running arbitrary executable files), SQL Server (didn't this hit Microsofts' network as well?), or IIS, or word, or Excel, or...
I understood Outlook was intended to be an enterprise level application. Why doesn't it have enterprise level security?
I also thought IIS was intended to be an enterprise level app. again, a swing and a miss.
SQL Server? Word? Excel? Windows2000? Were they not intended and advertised as being enterprise level? Why are they not secure enough to be used at that level?
Why are these "enterprise level applications" causing tens (hundreds?) of billions of dollars worth of damage or inconvenience to the companies using them when their security is breached?
Maybe they do the things they were intended to do well enough to be considered useful at an enterprise level, but the things they do that they are not supposed to do remove them from that level - and render them liabilities when deployed at an enterprise level.
I agree, pwtrash - I always love it (really grit my teeth when I hear it) when the answer does not address the question.
"But aren't Sun and IBM doing that to make that happen? And IBM and Sun are investing a lot of money to make sure their software works with their respective utility computing programs. What are you doing besides saying we'll sit down with you and work on it?It's interesting. We've spent $2.5 billion in Adaptive Enterprise. That's a pretty healthy R&D investment, so I disagree that we're not investing in technology. "
Who said or asked about investing in technology? The question was "What are you doing besides saying we'll sit down with you and work on it" and "I disagree that we're not investing in technology" is not answering that question. In fact, your (Nora Denzels') answer totally evades the question. So you spent 2.5 billion in Adaptive Enterprise. How much was for consultants who cam up with the name 'Adaptive Enterprise', how much was payroll for the management who came up with the project, what specifically did you get for that 2.5 billion that makes your product better than another product? Yes, yes, that IS a pretty healty R&D investment, BUT was it all invested in R&D (was some of it G&A? How about Marketing?) and if so, WHAT DID YOU GET FOR THE MONEY that makes your product better than other products available from other venders?
OK, who let the Marketing Major in here?
... Wait a minute! How are they going to dynamically readjust to "legal changes reguarding to [sic] auditing of customer privacy information" that affect its business "without having to modify code and recreate applications"? And how does a company dynamically readjust to "changes to the tax code" that affect its business "without having to modify code and recreate applications"?
Now, I hate business-speak as much as the next guy, but the "gem" you quote made perfect sense.
And the statement quoted is Adaptive Enterprise defines an entity where a company will be able to dynamically readjust to changes that affect its business.
I am confused as to which part made 'perfect sense'. "Adaptive Enterprise defines (no, it LABELS) an entity (a thing, something that exists as a distinct, independent, or self-contained unit, a being or existence - Websters College Dictionary - how is this thing, being, or existence being defined by those words?) where (aha, so it is a place or a destination?) a company will be able to dynamically (non-statically) readjust (REadjust? So they have already dynamically adjusted now they are dynamically REadjusting?) to changes that affect its business."
Sorry, but I never took MarketSpeak in college when I was going for an AS in Nursing, or when I went back for an AS in Accounting, or the time I spent working for a BS in CS/EE dual degree - just regular English. Maybe that is the handicap that is causing my confusion.
They are talking about the ability for your [sic] to change your business processes without having to modify code and recreate applications.
Oh!!, Ok. Now I see what you
Of course, the fact you were compelled to bash MS in your post should say something about your real-world exprience with developing enterprise applications.
Now here I can agree with you. People with "real-world experience with developing enterprise applications" probably DO feel compelled to bash Microsoft - after all, what other company tries so hard to produce enterprise level applications and fails so miserably at it?
No, looking up things from the party involved http://www.scc-inc.com/Products/default.htm
FROM SCCs WEB SITE, they sell parts to remanufactures - THEY DON'T REFILL CARTRIDGES OR SELL REFILLED CARTRIDGES.
They seem to sell to third parties (one in my area is LaserLogic) so that the third party can do those things - replace drums, wiper, refill cartridges, etc.
I agree one of us doesn't know what they are talking about. As I am taking my information from that given by Static Control Component, I suspect it is you.
I'm pretty well aware of what there [sic] services are.
Evidently not.
As I said, they make parts - including chips - FOR OTHER COMPANIES so the other companies can remanufacture (and sell) toner cartridges.
Something's fux0red to the point where the actual WMP program won't even start up anymore.
Somehow I have a problem with making WMP a part of the OS when it is POSSIBLE to fux0r it that badly.
I agree with all you just posted. :]
When blasting someone, check your facts before fireing to reduce damage to toes/feet/extremities.
... makes computer chips for third-party ink cartridges. The chips enable manufacturers to create clones of the cartridges used in Lexmark printers.
:)
From this site
Static Control Components
So your post Static Control is a cartridge remanufacturer. They don't make their own....they replace drums, wipers, etc. and refill them.
is a "[n]ice point. Too bad it's blatantly wrong."
They are not cartridge remanufactures. They don't replace drums,wiper, etc. They don't refill them (cartridges). They make chips FOR OTHER COMPANIES so the other companies can do those things.
The parent poster you quote is also partially wrong, in that SCC never "sold their own compatible toner carts." that I can see. They are correct, though that "[t]he Lexmark case is about how a laserprinter toner cartridge manufacturer (SCC) reverse-engineered the circuitry on the Lexmark toner carts" - specifically the chip Lexmark started using that "communicates with the company's printers and verifies that the cartridge is from Lexmark. Without that verification, the cartridge won't work. SCC's Smartek chips mimic the Lexmark chips so third-party cartridges can pose as official ones." (same site as above link.)
Not quite.
From this site
Last year Lexmark began using a chip in some of its cartridges that communicates with the company's printers and verifies that the cartridge is from Lexmark. Without that verification, the cartridge won't work. SCC's Smartek chips mimic the Lexmark chips so third-party cartridges can pose as official ones.
It is definitely PROOF of wrong doing on anyones part
Should have been
"It is definitely NOT PROOF if wring doing on anyones part."
My bad.
As the Copyright owner, you cannot tell others how they can use your software.
Yes.
[GPL] uses Copyright to limit what others can do with the software.
Yes and no. Copyright limitswhat you can do with the software, the GPL grants distribution/redistribution rights to the software AND ANY MODIFICATIONS. Therefore GPL extends the limits of what you can do with the software.
If they (SCO or other company) use GPL'd software in their product, then the GPL covers that software as well, or they remove the GPL code.
It is more complicated than that. If their software is a modification of GPLed software then it must be GPLed as well. If it only USES GPLed software, the GPLed part must remain GPLed, but the other parts may remain propriatary - the GPL is not "viral" in that it does not contaminate by casual association, it only applies if the new work is a modification of the original work or makes the GPLed software an integral part of the software - i.e., linking to libraries that are GPLed.
ANY SOFTWARE that tries to limit what you can do with the software after purchase has an open license. You can put Windows OS on ANY computer you want. Any license on software that tries to limit your usage of said software becomes null and void.
Not really. The owner and/or copyright owner can put any restricitons on the licensing of the software they want. Whether the restrictions are legal is another matter. For instance, I can (and some do) put the restriction on usage that the software is not to be used for weapons developement. As far as I am aware that restriction has not been tested in court, so is presumed to be legal. NOTICE, though, that that is not COPYRIGHT that is putting the restriction on the end user, nor is it GPL. Copyright allowes the AUTHOR to put restrictions on their work.
You cannot subpoena an individual without setting a date for that individual to appear.
I am not a lawyer, and I have never received a subpoena, so I don't know and am therefore asking.
To subpoena someone, do you have to specify why that person is being subpoenaed, or are you allowed to go on fishing expeditions?
Are subpoenas public documents? Can someone find out why these people were subpoenaed - at least the reasons given to the court?
Specifically, I am wondering what information SCO thinks these people have that relates to a contract dispute with IBM.
After reading this, and realizing I understood the post, I have called for professional help. Thank you WWWWolf, for pointing out a dangerous flaw in my psychology!
If IBM supposedly has the source, based on past agreements made (surely they can find that tape, CD, or archived file somewhere) that they "stole" the information from, can't they use this source to compare against existing linux source to compare for similarities, similar to what SGI did?
Sure they COULD, but they don't have to - SCO has to specify the violations but they are not. IBM is not required to do SCOs legal research. Either SCO does their own, or it gets thrown out.
It is not enought for SCO to say IBM is infringing "somewhere" and IBM has to figure out where. In court SCO has to show EXACTLY where.
Supposedly, SCO found a (some?) specific, identifiable instance(s) of SCO controlled source code in something IBM had released into the wild which prompted the lawsuit. IBM is saying "tell us what you found." SCO seems to be saying "you tell us what we would have found if we had looked." Not anything IBM is required to do -under US law.
If you are using this to support the contention that Microsoft is behind the SCO lawsuit against IBM, or that this is 'common knowledge', it doesn't.
1) You are correct, SEC filings are public. This is not an SEC filing. This is an article that builds supposition around the licensing fees Microsoft has paid. The fees were disclosed in SEC filings - as required.
2) The fees paid were for 'licensing of Unix, and exercising of options to further license Unix'. I agree that there does not SEEM to be a reason for Microsoft to license Unix, but that is not sufficient evidence of wrong doing. It is definitely PROOF of wrong doing on anyones part.
Personally, I find it highly suspicious that a company with a vested interest in the demise of Linux and Open Source software is paying large amounts (relative to SCOs worth) in 'licensing fees' to a company with a lawsuit that might possibly achieve those goals, BUT THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF WRONG DOING.
It also doesn't make that suspicion "common knowledge".
The GPL does not restrict, it permits.
Sorry, but you are reading it wrong. In order to protect the "right" of the software to be "Free", it restricts how you can distribute it.
Yes and no. COPYRIGHT limits who can distribute/redistribute copyrighted works - only those with a license from the copyright holder. GPL is that license, in advance, to anyone who agrees to its terms. You don't have to agree - but then you have no license to distribute/redistribute the software and can not do so.
I agree with you that the progression is PD (not copyright protected - actually copyright protections have ben waived), BSD (copyright, licensed for redistribution without terms), GPL (licensed for redistribution with terms), others (copyright without license to redistribute, but you can ask the copyright holder)... with MS (copyrighted, don't even ask about modifying or licensing) last.
You seem to be looking at this from a developer viewpoint, and saying that you would like to make use of the base of free software, but not have to agree to the limitations that all the others who are using that same base are agreeing to. I agree that might be nice, but that is specifically what the GPL is designed to prevent - taking FOSS and making it propriatary.
You are free to create any software you want or need, or modify existing software - but if it requires GPLed libraries, then you have two choices - use the GPLed libraries and release your software under the GPL, or re-invent the required libraries and release it however you want. What you are not allowed to do is make use of someone elses work, licensed to you with specific redistributing requirements under GPL and release the results however you might want.
Nothing personal, but you are incorrect.
Sorry, but you are the one who is incorrect, based on your posting.
The GPL grants you the right to use software.
Wrong. The author and copyright owner grants you usage rights. The GPL grants you REDISTRIBUTION rights (which you DON'T HAVE under copyright) but it does have restrictions - which you acknowledge - but the restrictions are on additional rights which you don't have under copyright - you only get them if you agree to the conditions of the GPL.
Copyrighted software is not allowed to be redistributed or modified in any way without the copyright owners permission - GPL is that permission, in advance, with some requirements.
Software that is not GPLed is not allowed to be modified or distributed without specific permission from the copyright holder. Full stop, period, end of discussion.
The key is that the restrictions are reasonable in the case of GPL, but yes, it DOES restrict what you can do
Again, it is COPYRIGHT that limits what you can do, it is GPL that LETS you do things that are not allowed under basic copyright. The GPL puts restrictions on the additional rights it grants you - again, rights that you don't have under non-GPLed code. If you don't agree to the GPL restrictions, you are "only" allowed the rights allowed under copyright.
Granting additional rights is not restictive, even if there are restrictions on those additional rights.
Developers must open their distributed changes, virtually free of charge. Most would say this is a fair trade off, benefiting the majority, but its still a very significant restriction. (emphysis added)
The author (the original creator of the software in this case) made the determination that they would license their work with the understanding that any CHANGES TO THEIR WORK would be required to also be released under the same restrictions. Personally, that sounds entirely reasonable to me. If you write a really great software program and decide to release it GPL, and I make an itneresting modification, I have two legal choices: I can keep the modification to my self and make any further modification I might want - an allowed activity under the GPL - or I can release my modification of your work to others - in which case it must conform to the license terms agreed to between you and I - the GPL.
Another choice is to release the modification under a different licensing scheme - but ask Lynksys/Cisco what happens then! That is not an allowed legal option and you are opening yourself up for lawsuits.